This is from one of the first ever articles we wrote on Wings, just a couple of weeks after the site’s launch way back in November 2011:

Depressingly, some people still don’t get it.

The publication of the long-awaited Growth Commission report has done what it set out to do – kicked off some modest discussion about how an independent Scotland would look and how it should be run.

(Modest because to be honest it’s an excruciatingly boring read and we doubt that anything like 1% of Scots will ever get through the 55-page summary version, let alone the 354-page full-fat one. When even the introduction to a document has a paragraph 2.3 (2) you know you’re not in for a rollercoaster ride, and it’s hard to endure enough of it to even be able to bluff a credible opinion. We suppose we should be grateful it’s at least down to half the size of the White Paper.)

The opposition and media have been somewhat blindsided, most of the less demented pundits grudgingly damning it with faint praise for its detail and grasping of some jagged thistles, and accepting most of Andrew Wilson’s assessments but then rejecting his considered conclusion that independence is still the only sensible way forward to a prosperous and socially-just Scotland.

(The demented pundits, meanwhile, have competed with each other to suggest the most absurd periods of time it would take an independent Scotland to drag itself up to somewhere near the civilisation levels of other comparable countries, with the bidding having quickly escalated from 10 years to 25 to 67 and probably to 500 by the time we’ve finished writing this sentence.)

Many on the left of the Yes movement, meanwhile have been rather disappointed by the report’s small-c conservatism in a number of areas, particularly what some people (including ourselves) regard as a slightly over-timid fudge over the issue of currency, and therefore monetary policy.

And those on the radical (translation: unelectable) left, well, they’re in a right old strop.

The entirely predictable list of usual suspects – we’re going to break our usual rules here and not link to examples, because attention is all they want – have howled that THIS sort of independence isn’t worth having at all, and hinted darkly that they’ll desert the movement for the unlikely lure of a Jeremy Corbyn government in the UK.

And it’s worth pausing for a moment to consider the rational implications of that. Let’s take the monarchy as an illustration of the point. A reader yesterday mentioned to us an acquaintance of theirs who was inclined towards independence but also a fervent republican, and on the grounds that the 2014 White Paper didn’t propose abolishing the monarchy had voted No.

Yeah, we know.

In our Panelbase poll of English voters this month, we asked about the monarchy, and got the result we expected. Excluding don’t-knows (20%), it was a landslide:

ENGLAND

Keep the monarchy: 80%
Abolish the monarchy: 20%

No UK political party is going to propose abolition of the monarchy in the lifetime of anyone reading this site. Those sorts of numbers just aren’t turning round even if Prince Phillip starts taking potshots at commoners from the Buck House balconies.

(If anything, the people in line to the throne – with the exception of Prince Charles, who’s already as old as Jeremy Corbyn – are even more popular with the public than the current queen.)

We asked the same question a couple of years ago to voters in both Scotland and the rest of the UK, and the numbers have barely budged since. And while the whole UK is pro-royalty by a long way, the margin is 16 points narrower in Scotland – 72% to 28%.

And that tells us two things:

(1) If you want rid of the monarchy, you’re up against it but you’ve at least got a considerably better starting position in Scotland than by staying in the UK.

(2) Failing being able to actually abolish the monarchy, the best thing you can hope for is that you at least stop paying for them. Countries like Canada and Australia which still have the Queen as head of state don’t finance her (except when she visits them, and that’s easily dodged or minimised).

The same applies to other “red lines” of the radical left. On Trident, for example, even the worst-case independence scenario (that Scotland continues to host the weapon system by leasing the rUK the Faslane base for a period of time while the rUK builds a replacement) is still vastly superior to the status quo, which is that Scotland hosts it AND pays for it.

We discovered from our poll that English voters would happily cough up £5bn a year in rent rather than let go of Trident (and quite possibly even more). That’s a net gain for the Scottish Exchequer of around £5.3bn a year, factoring in what we pay towards it as part of the UK.

For perspective, Scottish Labour’s plan to hike everyone’s taxes to combat austerity and fund local councils would raise – at the very most – a measly £500 million, in reality probably far less due to the ease of avoidance if Scotland is still in the UK, and also keep Trident on the Clyde.

You’d think choosing between £500m and £5bn to fight austerity would be a no-brainer for any radical socialist, yet we’re already hearing arguments that somehow the first one is better, even if it would require putting the Scottish Government’s finances into the hands of the likes of Jackie Baillie and James Kelly and Anas Sarwar.

(Jeremy Corbyn, of course, wouldn’t have the power to set Scottish income tax even if he did defy all the polls and get into power at Westminster for a year or two before either his own party’s “moderates” overthrew him, infirmity or worse caught up with a man in his 70s, or England’s natural Tory majority reasserted itself.)

The Scottish radical left abandoning independence for the hope of Jeremy Corbyn would be one of the greatest face-spiting nose-amputations in world political history. And yet such is the ego/gullibility/short memory of many on the far left that it’s not possible to entirely rule it out.

Ironically, it could be an unlikely alliance between Yes Leavers and Yes Lefties, not the Tories and the right, that tips the numbers to defeat a second indyref and chains Scotland to the UK’s Brexit wrecking ball.

After the Brexit vote we in Dundee RIC polled a working class suburb to take the temperature. Yes Leavers confronted with the choice all opted for Yes. Most recognise that iScotland constitutes a bringing back of control.

I think the vast majority of Yes Leavers will vote Yes when it comes down to it. Doing it once makes it MUCH easier to do it again.

We don’t have a referendum campaign, nobody is actively campaigning for yes, there is no confirmed date. In the absence of both that and not knowing the final shape of Brexit (because the Tories cannae decide on it OR a version the EU and Eire will accept).

Post that knowledge in comparison with Yes and they will vote Yes, we just have to be sure of presenting them with the choice face to face. Make them look a Yes campaigner in the eye and deny Scotland. They won’t do it.

No Leavers on the other hand are probably a lost cause.

The interesting ones are those like my wife, No Remainers. I would describe my wife as Yes curious. She very much likes the free sanitary pads etc policy as well as offering women from NI free treatment here for their abortions. She hates Brexit with a passion and if Yes means more such policies and Remaining she may well be persuaded.

A lot of her middle class academic friends in Edinburgh are similar. Last time a group of eminent academic economists got together informally and worked out whether iScotland was a going concern or not. They reckoned it most certainly was. Didn’t make most of them vote Yes last time but it may well do this time. One of them, one of a few who can read and interpret complex trade data offered his services to HMG, in retirement he earns quite a lot jetting about advising other governments. HMG said no thanks, he’s in Scotland you see which makes him suspect.

I think a lot of academics will vote Yes this time, the EU citizens certainly will. I don’t think we will have trouble persuaded EU Scots to vote and vote Yes this time.

God help us if Baillie, Kelly or Sarwar ever get near the finances of Scotland.

Not only would they send billions of £s back, again, to their masters in Westminster, they would take a wrecking ball to essential services, just like they are doing in councils around Scotland since they went into coalition with the tories to keep the elected SNP council out. Absolute disgrace and all to punish the people, while hoping the people will blame the SNP government.

Forget your prescriptions free at the point of need, tuition fees free, mitigating the bedroom tax, ILF, EMA, help with housing for our young people, nurses bursaries, the list goes on, and on.

Scotland would be dragged down, and taken back several years if not centuries if these Labour MSP’s had their way, they dance to the tune of the UKGov.

Re the royals, if people want to keep them, that’s fine but they could be housed in modest accomodation, volunteering to help the needy for their keep.

There is a great book and I am repeating myself, called, ‘Living off the State, a critical guide to royal finance’ by Jon Temple, 2008, Progress books. It’s just touches the surface of exactly what the monarchy means in the UK. They are very expensive, have alot more power than people think, and are not all squeaky clean when it comes to business etc. Who’d of thought.

As Rev says, its a one point matter..Independence or Not..simples..everything else comes afterwards…its like pondering “How many good looking folk tonight?” in a club before you even face the bouncer.

if you hear a low sighing rumble from South Glasgow most mornings then that’s probably me reading the latest tweet claiming its all about the working class and nothing else.

The career lefties are a worry especially when supposed Indy supporting outlets are happy to let them rise the positive winds with one eye on jumping onto the Corbyn bandwagon. They will get found out soon enough but dare say some will get that cosy media job they crave.

The devouts..ie Scottish Socialist Party for one seem hell bent on a All or Nothing attitude and I just cant get my head around it as why destroy your only chance of ever being credible.

What is wrong with a country for everyone, yeah even landowners and large business…as along as all treated equally (in measure of course) and none left behind, I really don’t see the big deal.

It is also worth pointing out , that we do not now the complexion of the first elected governments of a new Scotland. It is them and the electorate that will decide the shape of Scotlands economy and future post Independence. Now is not the time to split into factions that would parody the Life of Brian’s People front of Judea suicide squad. Eyes on the prize.

The great thing about the GC report is that isn’t a leftist bible. Indy Ref 1 was considerably left, and that was probably needed to break the Labour hold on Scotland. But on its own it’s gone as far as it can go, and yet there are those who insist we continue to pursue a leftist Independence to sweep up the remaining 2% who didn’t vote YES. Which using an Average graph would give us 276% YES, but more mathematically 44.7% + 2% = 46.7%. Ooops, it a FAIL.

This report has allowed the likes of Michael Fry to enthuse a bit about it, and it’s that side is needed to try to get far more of the middle. If the right want to jump on board as well, welcome to YES.

And as for the Leader of YES, if we bother to have one, by no means should it be a leftist. Once we’re Independent we vote for who we like.

Yes but, magically everybody in the not independent Scotland would then rise up and not do very much because the Tories, with the help of Labour in Scotland and the timid Lab in Westminster, would have removed the power of Holyrood to do nothing more than move the filing cabinets around.

What the left can’t get out of is the rut of only seeing every attempt to change in relation to the Tories. Right now we want to get away from Tory control but once that is done everything doesn’t need to be done in opposition them.

We can create a society where it isn’t Tory destructive policies that are the driving force. Labour and socialism were in reaction to Tory overarching power. Some can’t see a future where the Tories aren’t there as now.

Nothing is more outright idiotic or self centred than a statement of ‘my independence or no independence’.

There is no ‘my independence’. It’s OUR independence. It belongs to all of us. The rich, the poor, the young and the old. It belongs to the radical left and the more conservative (whatever they are). It belongs to those who want the freedom to choose.

It belongs to ALL of us.

ALL under one banner. That was quite the gathering earlier this month. Folk from every walk of life. I, personally, didn’t consider its title a serving suggestion. It’s not a complicated concept as philosophies go and one where, whatever that walk of life, you get to hold out a hand and stand together because of a principle worth having. The freedom and the inalienable right to choose. Pretty heady stuff I thought.

Indy first and last. Secure our rights. Give people the power to make informed choices and then work on and make those choices to suit your needs.

We will need to be AUOB if we are to get this job done. The detractors who appear to be bereft of common sense can go and take a hike, they do us and themselves no favours with their constant bleating. Who’re they trying to kid?

It’s seriously painful to think that some folk really do think that giving their vote to Corbyn is somehow preferable to indy. I really don’t get it at all, same with the ‘red liners’. How many times do we continue to get fckd before these folk realise.

I don’t care about you politics, as long as you are probably indy. Once we get it, we can argue the toss then. Indy is the goal……

I don’t want a pathetic bunch of cowards telling me that their Indy is the only way – people who prefer to let someone else take responsibility and then whine that it is all just too difficult or ideologically impure. When Independence is restored to Scotland I want a government that is realistic, brave and prepared to roll up its sleeves to tackle what is ahead. It will be hard but it will be worth it.

The Growth Commission is a first step to being a grown-up country, identifying problems and thinking of solutions. OK they might not be the only solutions but that is the point – it is a discussion document.

Corbyn is just another british nationalist who hasn’t a clue about Scotland. Over the decades Scotland has given Labour plenty of opportunities to do something good for the people of Scotland. Labour has always concentrated on what’s good for the people of England. Enough is enough.

I have never understood the argument “the white paper wasn’t republican enough therefore I will stick with unquestioning monarchy”. It is beyond childish.

Politics is always the art of the possible. I was discussing this last night with friends. Every party struggles with the Monetarist/Keynesian dichotomy. Nowhere is the circle truly squared and nowhere is one path followed solely or for any length of time. Politicians do not think in the long term.

The Growth Commission leans heavily to deficit control and has a very cautious approach to currency. Richard Murphy points out that this caution is fraught with problems and they should be bolder in striking out for our own currency. These are decisions for whoever will be in power post independence. there is no getting away from this and Stu is spot on to call out the silliness of throwing the toys out of the cot over an advisory document. External factors could accelerate or decelerate the process. We could have our own currency within 3 to 5 years rather than 10. I think this would be a much better state of affairs.

However, what the Growth Commission has done is put a serious and weighty possible blueprint on the table and more Unionist leaning types have, grudgingly in some cases, conceded that it is a serious document. Of course some of the more partisan have dismissed it out of hand without reading a word. That is fine, they are easy to flush out and ridicule but the Yes side needs to calm down to a convulsion. We are agreed that Scotland can prosper and be a better nation with self determination. The routes, policies and aspirations that will be hammered out in elections…the many elections that follow in the decades and centuries to come will be for the electorate to decide upon not a single discussion document tabled before a referendum. So by all means be radically socialist and produce a vision that lays that discussion on the table but don’t throw the baby of independence under the bus because you don’t like the pram.

IMO Corbyn will be “promoted” heavily by the BritNat media north of the border, in order to keep the SNP at bay, whilst at the same time he will be utterly destroyed in England to ensure continued tory rule.

Be ready for an orchestrated effort by BBC Scotchland to trash the SNP, and carefully edited photos of Jezza in front of “huge” crowds during his increasingly frequent visits to Scotland, just to show what a popular guy he is. With Ruthie and Teresa lacking courage to do anything other than meet in a secret barn out in the sticks somewhere, the BritNats know their only chance to contain the next SNP tsunami is to promote Jezza as a real, left-wing alternative. It’s a risky, two-front offensive, but the BritNats have little option other than to try and pull it off (again).

The Scottish ‘radical-left’ haven’t learned how to think outside their ideological boxes. Apparently not critcal realists or radical constructavists. Definately not yet found the post-colonial. Probably utilitarians.

British nationalism gives preference to English culture and practice, (see the concept of “sovereignty of Parliament” and Brexit, for examples). As such, British nationalism is inherently prejudiced against non-English cultures. So what about socialist solidarity, brother?

Marxism, racism and ethnicity.

Marxism provides a profound analysis of the interrelations of events, putting economics into perspective. However, Marxism as a method in sociological research fails to provide substantial explanation to problems pertaining to race and ethnic relations. Assumptions which can explain economic relationships fail to explain contemporary racism and problems associated with it. Advocates of Marxism face the challenge of showing the relevance of their theoretical and historical views to contemporary forms of race and ethnic relations.

Provides a compelling series of comparative analyses of race, ethnicity, & culture at a time when boundaries designating racialized groups are being radically redrawn. This volume moves beyond the black/white focus to address the diversity of identities & histories & thus provides a state of the art commentary on the theorization of this field.

From Cultural Competence to Cultural Consciousness: Transitioning to a Critical Approach to Working Across Differences in Social Work

Abstract

Driven by increasing cultural diversity and growing inequities in health and social outcomes, cross-cultural competence has become a fundamental dimension of effective and ethical social work practice. It has assumed a prominent discourse in social work education, scholarship, professional practice, codes of ethics, and organizational policy; however, how one defines, acquires, applies, and evaluates cultural competencies continue to be issues of debate. Grounded in a postmodern epistemic frame, an integrated model of critical cultural consciousness for working across differences in social work is proposed and implications for micro, mezzo, and macro levels of practice are discussed.

In the end it’s not about the SNP, the Growth Commission report, Leftism or Rightism, social liberalism or social conservativism it’s independence and how do we get it by the quickest means possible.
That needs bold and charismatic leadership and a National Movement that is independent of sectional meddling and factionalism.
British politics has zilch to offer. Davidson and Corbyn are merely opposing sides of the same base coin.

I should say that I recall well from university the propensity of the radical left to fall out with each other over points of doctrine. Monty Python were tapping into a well worn trope with the splitter jibe. A friend once said to me that “I do worry that it is becoming like a religion and that heretics must burn.”

It’s like arguing about what colour to paint the kitchen before your offer’s been accepted on the house.
What is it some people don’t understand about the concept of self determination? One step at a time. Use every ounce of energy to secure our independence and as night follows day the nation we aspire to be will emerge through the normal democratic process. Just because cats fighting in a sack has been the political norm up until now in Scotland doesn’t mean we have to keep doing it ffs.

@CameronB Brodie
The British left has consistently decried Scottish nationalism as a ‘deviance’. It is centrist ie London-centrist and independence seeking Scots are wilfully rocking the people’s boat.

I remember watching a very middle class Uni student, or recent graduate, being interviewed on TV in build up to Indy Ref and she said she liked being the edgy left wing, odd-one-out, political supporters among her friends.

She was voting No to Scotland electing its own government.

It’s as if these people love talking about “radical” things just so long as there is the UK mass safety net of voters ensuring that it will never come even close to happening.

They think they are ‘principled’? They’re mostly ‘intellectual’ types who are applying the word ‘radical’ to their own thinking, the reality is it’s more: ‘what we’ve read about ‘racial thinkers’ who came before us.

By reading about it they ‘think’ they have ‘discovered’ it and then the spouting begins. Endless spouting…. they are in essence ‘intellectually dishonest’.

I have a few of what you might call Red Line issues regarding what I want for an independent Scotland.

1. Trident – I want this abomination removed from Scotland above every other goal. Some argue that we’d be better leasing the base for a while whilst they sort themselves out. My personal desire is that the GTF with it the day after a Yes vote but Realpolitik will ensure otherwise. I will therefore accept under protest a lease deal for a couple of years provided the cost of the rent makes Britannia’s fucking eyes water.

2. The Monarchy – I want a Republic much as John MacLean envisaged and though I cannot understand why anyone with an IQ over 65 can accept the concept that someone is in any way superior to them due to accident of birth and possession of wealth/land that their ancestors murdered, stole, enslaved and deceived to obtain; I have to accept that there a great number of my countrymen who still have to mature enough intellectually to make that leap of conciousness.

3. NATO – Redundant since 1989, it is now the Arms Manufacturers’ equivalent of a 1980s Book Club where you have to make a minimum purchase of over priced, over-rated British or American deathshite per year equivalent to a percentage of your GDP. It is also facilitator for human and narcotics trafficking.

I want Scotland to have absolutely nothing to do with any of the above abominations but would the presence of them stop me advocating support for an independent Scotland?

I see that ‘division’ among Yes movement is being promoted by media since publication of GC report.

Funny enough that ‘division’ was already sown pre report via ‘Indy’ supporting Corbynista wannabe’s . Those who ‘want’ Indy but only ‘want’ it by voting Labour under Corbyn….fcuk knows how that will work….but if so….then what ?

We have the Radical People’s Front suicide squad, they will commit mass referendum suicide as a political protest if the main political party for independence does not adopt their ideology.

If they are so confident of their appeal then they would go for independence then presumably win the next election. But as most people know they are basically just unelectable and want to use blackmail for their Yes vote.

I think of myself as pretty left-wing until I hear the Holy Grail Lefties such as those I used to encounter on Bella and such who secretly love Grampa Corbyn and delude themselves he has principles but they have nothing in common with me at all because it’s independence or nothing as far as I’m concerned. After that we decide on everything else as we see fit. It’s not very complicated, is it?

Real socialists like John Maclean risked everything and lost everything, they didn’t just start a blog, switch to a low-fat turmeric-infused Americano and pout to camera while wearing a long leather coat.

Those seduced by Corbyn really dont understand their history or the political realities in England. England will never elect Corbyn. And if by some magical happening they do, the right wing establishment will bring him down within 2 years. Unbelievably niaive or are they just unionists in YES clothing?

Not sure how easy it’ll be to simultaneously promote Corbyn in Scotland and remote him in the rUK when the Scottish Six didn’t get off the launchpad. Will be interesting how the new BBC Scotland treats UK news and if there’s a concerted effort to suppress it.

As it presently stands the unionists have a problem in portraying Scotland as utter shite compared to the rUK due to not having a filter on BBC news. Print media is different of course.

I tend to be a bit to the left myself but always ask these putative socialists, who would vote to remain in this foul Union, when they think socialism in the U.K. will ever be allowed by Westminster. An independent Scotland will have choices that Westminster will NEVER allow!

For goodness sake let’s put a sock in all this bickering as it plays right into the Brit Nats game plan. My personal feelings have been well covered above and all of us who have one grain of intelligence, like myself, know that we need all who believe in Indy to unite and yes this includes those Indy supporters on the far right and far left as well. As has been pointed out there is only ‘ONE’ question Independence or stay in the present cesspit that is the UK.

However there is one thing that we can all coalesce around and that is a fair and socially just society for all. Who will deliver that, well that is for the General Election to the first Scottish Independent Government where the electorate will decide if the extremists of either hue succeed.

As for believing in Corbyn he’s a busted flush, if he can’t get his ratings out of sight of the Tories, where he should be now given the current state of the Tories then we will be lumbered with the Tories and their DUP allies again.

So, let’s all of us get the single most important message out, Indy FIRST and the rest follows.

” … if you hear a low sighing rumble from South Glasgow most mornings then that’s probably me reading the latest tweet claiming its all about the working class and nothing else.”

Och! Desimond, you are probably not alone in such thinking in South Glasgow and you’re probably correct in your analysis too.

I was quite a youngster when I came to the conclusion that history shows both extremes of the political spectrum are every bit as destructive to any state adopting either of the extremes.

Far as I can gather from many years of being interested in both politics and real.(as opposed to taught), history. Most successful, prosperous, and happy nations or states are those with a central or just slightly left or right of central, position on the political spectrum.

There is something else these same central states seem to foster and that is they are never expansionist or warmongering but may maintain real defence forces and are usually also members of such organs as the United Nations.

If the educated chimpanzees of the “radical” left want to use their Yes vote as blackmail to get everyone else to kow tow to their superior wisdom, tell them to fuck off and shove it.

If the SNP/SG and Yes movement does its job and gets round to focusing on putting as many of the wider general misinformed public in touch with the facts as possible (WBB2 etc?) then quite quickly opinion will start switching to Yes more so than it already is.

Point being that these people who say they’ll only vote for “radical” indy but not any other kind of indy are tiny in numbers. Their only value is to british nationalists who can use them as useful idiots. As far as an indy vote is concerned, they’re not needed. Of course every vote counts and all that, but in the bigger picture they make very very little, if any, difference to anything.

David Smith @5.35
I admire a man who has the clarity of vision to see that, whatever his fervently held beliefs, they must take second place to the all-important winning of Independence. Well said, David.
I may disagree with some of your sentiments but I like your conclusion.

” … Labour has always concentrated on what’s good for the people of England. Enough is enough.”

Nah! Dan, when Labour actually did concentrate on what was good for the people of the United Kingdom then Labour had spells of being in power as the things good for England are mostly usually things that are good for everyone else too.

It has only been since Labour began to do what they thought was good for The Labour Party that they became unelectable by a majority of the voters in England.

As much as I agree with what has already been said a lot if is and apologies for being brutally honest ‘intellectual pish’. Lets face we have got to grasp that most voters are basically ignorant and no matter what statistics/figures are thrown at them few will change their views after a 30 sec ‘discussion’ on the doorstep usually over teatime or the kids bath time. For many they have more important issues to worry about and if I was a doubter and one young lad/lass (no matter how able) disturbed me at my tea to explain the benefits of Indy it is very doubtful I would alter my view based on years of indoctrination by the MSM.

We have got to start thinking out of the box because no matter what Indy support there is on the ground the past campaign failed miserably. For one who got dragged into canvassing by accident(now 70yrs)and no matter how much of an interest in politics and the economy I was still unprepared to effectively answer many questions on key issues and education is going to be vital for all those going door to door in future. On Twitter I note the Scottish Office is already promoting the message of trade between Scot/Uk and this is going to be our very last chance for many decades if ever. The YES campaign was to be frank very poor and as has already been said many times we got within a whisker but only because the NO campaign was similarly ineffective until late in the campaign which will not happen next time. We have got to be far more professional and organised and recruit more people my age to share the workload. I can only speak for my district but the campaign was not well organised. We were rushing to get round all the doors in my neighbourhood but found later the NO campaiugn had been out 2/3 times. A lot of people TALK about what we should do but few of my generation were prepared to get out and knock on doors. Without that I’m afraid we are doomed to failure.

Ironing the old PJs while listening to Get It On (Radio Shortbread) as the news came on. Almost dropped the turbo steamer on my toes when they reported Ruth Davidson’s big speech at Glasgow Yooni tonight demanding more immigrants come to Scotland (subtext: SNP Bad). Don’t know where to even start on with that one *pours two fingers of first malt to hand*.

Item Two: attack on NHS Tayside using very sad suicide as ammunition.

Item Three: smirky announcement of advert for new head of Police Scotland following Gormley’s resignation (wot BBC Scotland/VichyVision spent a lot of time angling for).

Here’s the thing. I want full EU membership. I want out of NATO. I disagree with retaining the monarchy. At the moment the SNP are proposing retaining NATO and the monarchy. They are also looking at a Norway style EU deal.

I will not even blink when voting yes. Nor do I want to leave the SNP because I cannae get everything my own way. I am a grown up and a democratic. It’s not my party it’s everyone’s. It’s not my movement it belongs to the collective. Captain Hagerty et al are immature , selfish , short sighted and anti democratic. Thats why they annoy so many people.

Me,me,me is all you hear from them. Our movement needs to work together to defeat the establishment.

My view is and has been for years that we need independence so that we can sort out what kind of country we’re going to be. I’m pas 60 now and what I’ve learned is that there are very few quick fixes for anything. I’ve also learned that most quick fixes lead to even bigger fixes.

I’ve lost patience with the apparent willingness of so many people with different ideas of what kind of Scotland we’re going to become to demand that we sort out everything in one vote. It’s an insane position to take and I hope they all take a breath and consider the bigger picture. I know that many won’t entertain such an idea.

I also know that we can only get to the point where each of the multiple competing visions of what indy Scotland must be can have any realistic hope of becoming anything more than an ideal is through becoming independent in the first place.

If the so called radical left (and I generally consider myself to be fairly radical left. I know it’s ridiculous to introduce the concept of different levels of radical left. We could call them different flavours of radical left if that helped. But it probably won’t) want to dig trenches in order to defend their version of the pure and true vision, then they’ll just have to dig. The thing is they can do that. But if they have any idea of the reality of millions of people, each with their own minds, needing to come together on one overarching vision that will immediately open up the door to everyone who wants to share their political perspective having a realistic chance of persuading others to their POV they need to be willing to get the door open first.

The door that needs to open is inde-bloody-pendence. We need to free ourselves from Westminster if we’re to have any hope of making the massive difference to everyone we all want to make.

Let’s fight the battle that’s in front of us. Not the battles that can’t even happen until we get past the roadblocks Westminster throws up.

Winning the fight for independence is the one victory that enables everyone’s competing viewpoint to have some genuine meaning. Theoretical politics is just that. It’s also pish unless it has a real chance of becoming reality.

I hope at least some people will consider the realpolitik and use their energy to open the door to their own dreams.

We can get on the with serious business of denouncing each other and stabbing imaginary enemies after we win our independence.

Clootie, I was impressed by an elderly guy in Dublin who was asked how he voted, he said, ” I voted ‘YES’, not for myself but for all the young lassies who will now not have to travel to Scotland, Wales and England for an abortion”. Now there was a man who appreciated the need to vote for future generations and not be selfish.

” … Richard Murphy points out that this caution is fraught with problems and they should be bolder in striking out for our own currency.”

So, Handandshrimp, define for us all whose currency is it that Richard Murphy thinks we are using at the moment? Has the United Kingdom really been using a foreign currency since 1707?

” … We could have our own currency within 3 to 5 years rather than 10. I think this would be a much better state of affairs.”>

But! But! But! Answer the question, Whose currency is it we have been using since 1707?

” … Of course some of the more partisan have dismissed it out of hand without reading a word.”

Aye! And some who claim to have read it seem rather deficient in their native language – Scotland has used her own currency since 1707 as Sterling belongs as much to the Kingdom of Scotland as it does to the Kingdom of England. Did you, (and Richard Murphy), perhaps mean not use her own currency that she shares with the Kingdom of England? For that concept is rather different.

Furthermore, I’ve been monitoring my own holdings of ready cash for several years now and I rarely ever find a Bank of England banknote in either my immediate hip pocket nor in my reserves and I deal mainly in cash. So not only is the Pound Sterling Scotland’s own currency but the Scottish banknotes are distinctly enough Scottish as to be refused outright by English retailers or have them offer less than face value for a proffered Scottish banknote.

Thus there really is no problem whatsoever. Any form of independent Scottish Government, after the United Kingdom ends. Simply needs to declare the pound Sterling as the official continued currency of Scotland. It will be their choice if the Pound Sterling Scottish is tied or free floating with the pound Sterling English. The Kingdom of England. all three countries of it, can please themselves. The Independent Scotland does not require their permission to use sterling and the Kingdom of England can please themselves if they wish to agree a currency union or not – as can the Kingdom of Scotland.

However, where the Kingdom of England has no choice is in whether the shared assets of the, (so called), Bank of England is split up. For the Bank of England, in its entire lifetime has never legally belonged to the Kingdom of England. It began as, “The Governor & Company of the Bank of England”, in 1694. It was funded by private subscription, and remained an independent and private company until nationalised, by the United Kingdom and not the Kingdom of England alone, in 1946.

Not only that but the Bank of England holds in its vaults special high value bank notes as collateral for the distinctive Scottish Bank notes in circulation. These do not belong to either the Bank of England, (so called), nor to the Kingdom of England and as the Kingdom of Scotland was legally a partner in the then dis-United Kingdom, those bank notes will have to be returned to the Scottish banks.

This will impact greatly upon the Kingdom of England especially as the entire national debt was run up be Westminster and as Scotland was funded by Barnett Formula Grant by Westminster and Scotland had no borrowing rights is 100% England’s depts.

Remember that both Wales and N.I. also have no borrowing powers and are also Barnett grant funded while only the country of England is funded directly as the United Kingdom by UK ministries.

So Scotland would not begin with a deficit and all those nice little earners claimed by Westminster will have instantly ended and some of then will need renegotiated and rebalanced or Scotland takes her fuel, power and food/drink exports elsewhere.

As Artyhetty says upthread , in the hellish event that we lose indy due to the foment and division created by selfish radical idiot worms , and by some miracle father time corbyn and his cohort of radical right wingers { faux socialists } manage to get into power do they REALLY think that the jerm will implement any of his proposals , all his promises at the last election have disappeared already like snaw aff a dyke .

Also as artyhetty said could anyone with a modicum of intelligence imagine what misery would be heaped on Scotland if we were at the mercy of the incompetence of Baillie, Kelly ,Sarwar ,or the bloke wi the scarf . Jesus wept have we not suffered enough and learned anything from liebours constant betrayal of Scotland and it’s peoples

Seriously – if you knew it would speed the arrival of independence, would you support the establishment of a real Scottish Conservative Party (i.e. one minus the ‘Unionist’ bit that takes no orders from CCHQ?)

NB I don’t mean ‘support’ as-in ‘vote for’. Rather, an acknowledgement that such a party would have the potential to make meaningful/positive contributions to the indy debate. Davidson’s default position is ‘give it a rest’. That’s not a sustainable or credible stance for right-of-centre voters in Scotland who aren’t in denial and/or constantly preeening themselves for the MSM.

PS None of this means I’m declaring myself a Tory, but I’d at least listen to a representative of a genuinely independent Scottish Tory party *if* it was not under London control and didn’t dismiss indy out of hand. I’d certainly show them a lot more attention and respect than ‘trendy’ bawsacks bleating on about Corbyn The Saviour. Even if he did have the power to save Scotland from further Tory sadism he’s made it perfectly clear that he has no fucking intention of doing so.

“Ironically, it could be an unlikely alliance between Yes Leavers and Yes Lefties, not the Tories and the right, that tips the numbers to defeat a second indyref and chains Scotland to the UK’s Brexit wrecking ball.”

Rock (2nd January 2015 – “The Ne’erday Game”):

“Unfortunately, we have among us the most stupid people on the planet. Given the chance of 300 years, those who should have known better voted No.

Now just 3 months later, or just a minute after voting No if a tale on another thread is to be believed, they claim they would now vote Yes.

Throughout history and throughout the world, including here, people have died for independence. And we voted peacefully to reject it.

Craig Murray might not have been diplomatic but he was spot on when describing the 55% who had voted No.”

” … We are voting to start a new nation , not to install a new government.”

Where did you get that daft idea from, Big Jock?

The country and kingdom of Scotland is one of the oldest nations in the entire continent of Europe and was so long before England even became England.

The Romans were kept out of North Britain northern tribes of Britons. In fact the terms Scots & Picts derive from the names the Romans gave the Northern tribes

It was long after the Romans left south Britain and remember the Romans built the Gask Road, Gask Ridge and Antonine Wall before retreating south and building Hadrian’s new wall. Which, BTW:, many Englanders believe to be the Scottish/English Border but which is entirely built in England.

Not only that but English History, (also taught in Scottish Schools), would have us believe was to keep the northern Britons out of “England”, (sic), but there was not then a country or kingdom of England. It was Roman Britain and here is what a wee bit of common sense will prove.

The Roman way of running the entire Roman Empire was as a customs & excise, “Common Market”, and they actually did not rule hands-on. The set up the previous rulers in Roman Villas and had them run their colonies for them. But the Roman Centurions were the military and the Roman’s collected taxes and gathered customs & excise duties on exports and imports to the Roman Empire colonies.

So, ask yourself if Hadrian’s wall was to keep out attacking North Britons who had everything the ever needed in North Britain or to stop the South Britons from smuggling stuff in and out of South Britain? Anyway. the point is that what was to become Scotland existed before the Romans arrive in Britain and the Angles, Jutes, Saxons. Et Al. who gave south Britain the new name of, “Angleland”, were invited into South Britain only after the Roman Troops left. After hundreds of years of Roman rule those South Britons could not protect themselves and that is why the asked the Germanic tribes to come and settle in South Britain. BTW: The Normans, (that name is derived from,”Norsemen”), were just another faction of the Germanic tribes and some of their descendants are still sitting in the House of Lords as hereditary peers today.

The Britnats have only one arrow in their bow and it’s the !*^Fear^*! and that is the threat that they won’t trade with Scotland because we’ve been bad so we’ll go broke without them because of more trade with them blah blah blah

It’s what they did last time because it’s the only way they know how, Fear works they’ve proved it so they’ll do it again

The question is we know we can do it that’s easy to answer but are we too feart to try and I believe that’s a question that the women of Scotland could be answering

They’re the mothers and whether you believe in equality or all new fangled world talk, in Scotland women run the homes and have the most influence on the family and always have done and most men will go out and face down lions if they know their women are supporting them but without that support men are less inclined to take what they think are risks

Now I know all that sounds sort of sexist in reverse but I believe women are the big key to the next Independence vote
and their belief will win it for Scotland

It’s the very reason we have a woman FM and we all know when she starts campaigning she’s unstoppable

It’s not up to either chamber in Westminster, nor is it up to the parties to offer the Scottish population as an alternative. It’s up to the populations of the UK. If they’re not convinced it’s necessary? Not interested even?

It will NOT and cannot happen.

There is no pot of gold at the end of Labour’s promises. There is no devolution journey that ends in devo to the maxiest. If there were, we’d already be there. There is only political union (with no status quo) or self determination.

Here’s the thing. Divying up the UK’s assets between the rUK and Scotland can be divided between territory and possessions.

Territory is non-negotiable other than the sea border. No sodding enclaves not even Faslane. The rUK might rent land for the short term. Mineral and other wealth associated with the land goes with it. There’s no valuation as what’s Scotland’s is Scotland’s.

Physical assets such as buildings get their value assessed as do intellectual property and institutions and are split alongside the debt.

That last is where the Bank of England comes into the picture. As it’s a UK asset either we retain a share and insist on our seat or seats on the board, giving us more control than now or Westminster makes us an offer.

If we agree to being bought out then Westminster have a delicate balance to reach as far as valuing it goes. Too high and our share of the national debt will be far lower than an honest valuation. On the other hand too low might impact on the value of Sterling.

“Nicola Sturgeon made a very cogent and valid point regards currency. She said Scotland can continue to use the pound as it’s actually Scotland’s currency.
It doesn’t belong to England. It’s just called the bank of England. We have as much right to it as they do.”

Aye! Big Jock, and I’ve been preaching that very sermon here on Wings for a very long time indeed. Mind you I’ve preached some others too but they are all only now just beginning to be believed in spite of all the evidence proving them correct.

Westminster Establishment bullshit is powerful stuff and it has a very strong hold no people’s minds, but, like every other kind of shit, it stinks to high heaven.

” … It’s the very reason we have a woman FM and we all know when she starts campaigning she’s unstoppable.”

You re not wrong Dr Jim, Scottish history is full of strong and influential women. This tale is told but not verified:-

“Legend tells that the 27-year-old Robert de Brus was a handsome young man participating in the Ninth Crusade. When Adam de Kilconquhar, one of his companions-in-arms, fell in 1270, at Acre, Robert was obliged to travel to tell the sad news to Adam’s widow Marjorie of Carrick.

The story continues that Marjorie was so taken with the messenger that she had him held captive until he agreed to marry her, which he did in 1271.”

Pathetic STV Crap politics propaganda show at 10.30pm.
Wee Ruthless repeats the SNP First Minister’s proposal to attract much needed immigrants to Scotland and its a Headline story while the Elected Scottish Parliament’s same statement, not worth a look.

If we want (even) better government we need another independence referendum. Scotland, the country, will then be at liberty to fully achieve its potential. A Scotland that is in control of all its resource,economic levers can improve the life chances and work conditions for all its citizens. It’s logical and expected in a modern, rational democracy.

‘migration-friendly, where flexible labour fair and progressive work and active employment policies, maintaining a highly skilled workforce with transferable skills, using taxation as a tool for economic development but not competing as a low tax location, placing inclusive growth at the heart of the strategy and viewing quality of life as both an asset and objective…

Successful small advanced economies share several distinctive policy characteristics. These include high quality (macro and micro) policy foundations; a strong commitment to sustained investment in innovation, knowledge, and human capital; and an external
orientation that drives strong international engagement’

“I still feel a ‘snap GE’ round the corner (Autumn) to try and halt Brexit (and/or put a spoke in Indy Ref2).”

This has crossed my mind too, JWT. I fear WM will try to kick the Indy2 can along the road as possible, so what will the SG do?

Is a simple majority of Scottish WM seats in a forced GE a back-stop? Even 56/59 failed to attain 50% (by a whisker) but a manifesto commitment to such may be our only way out of perpetual procrastination by The Orcs ‘n’ Dorks.

Just watched the Lesley Riddoch film on the Faroe Islands posted above by X-sticks @ 10.44. Excellent. Amazing the power 60,000 people have when many of our towns have a greater population – think what we could do if/when we mobilise the Yessers.

If you include the Green vote in 2015, assuming you consider them pro-indy, the vote was over 51% for independence supporting parties. But none of the parties actually campaigned on independence in that election.

Don’t know if anyone has mentioned it (I’m between airports at the mo) but Ruth Davidson has an article in the DM. Although it’s about NHS funding she is also talking about increased (I think) immigrantion. She is getting slated BTL.

Please feel free to add to the green arrows ( not often I do that in the dm). She has just lost any backing she had from down south.

The article itself was pie in the sky but the btl comments were distinctly anti Ruth and this was a Conservative blog. In addition to anti Ruth comments there was the usual anti-Scottish prejudice on show… i.e. we can’t let England be ruled by a scottish person, they’ll always put Scotland first and it mentioned the disaster that was Blair/Brown as an example. The commentators were most definitely not swallowing the media love-in with (t)Ruthless.

For westminster, we should not worry so much about percentages. The winning marker for westminster is number of seats, and NOT vote share. No government is elected at westminster based on vote share.

If their is a snap election, the SNP MUST get their manifesto right so the pro indy folks will engage. To My mind, because of events and the timing this year, their commitment has to be something akin to, if we have a majority of SNP MP’s, then Scotland will assume those powers required to keep Scotland within the EU/single market/customs union, short of full independence. Thereafter a referendum will be held for full independence.

Where the SNP failed last time around was that their message was so lacklustre, the mainstream media in London just ignored them (and many pro indy folk were mighty p*ssed off). It is only by having a BOLD prospectus that shakes up London that the media down in London will start to take notice. In the election post indyref1, the manifesto was bold, and as a consequence the media in London wanted to interview and discuss the SNP. At the last election, their was literally nothing in the SNP manifesto to report. It was all jolly ;’nice’ and safe.

People are p*ssed off and the manifesto next time MUST reflect that. Being ‘nice’ will win nothing. Scotland is about to be forcibly removed from the EU against its clearly expressed wishes, and the manifesto MUST reflect that. That is the main topic of the day, not things like ‘class sizes’ or social care or whatever (important as they are).

The SNP in a UK election struggle to get air time. It is only by having a bold vision which directly upsets the westminster hegemony, that the media in London will take notice. They simply MUST be bold and challenge westminster authority next time. How dare England take Scotland out of the EU by force. They need to make them feart.

Agree totally. Scotland already has its own currency called the pound. it is not something ‘owned’ by England only. It is really very simple. The stumbling block last time around was the currency union – and the nonsense (bullish*t) from London regarding it.

Currency before independence, the pound. Currency after independence, the pound. Most people have zero grasp of economics, and even less interest in it. They just want to know they will have the same pound notes etc.. after independence, and they will.

Ruth Davidson given an easy ride last night on STV by Bernard Ponsonby who did not pursue a single question to a specific answer.

Ponsonby had an opportunity to find out if she has a single policy in her bag for Scotland. Her comment that Scotland was the highest taxed part of the UK was completely ignored and no reference to the many benefits.

Davidson is also waffling on about putting the NHS before tax cuts which is what has happened in Scotland but she obviously is conflating the Scottish and English NHS.

Time she was called out by some of these useless broadcast interviewers.

Imperialist fogey Dan Snow entertained us on the box the other night with Edward I & his problems with his “Empire!” This king of half an island was beset by Welsh “rebels” apparently, Snow failed to ponder on WTF this king was doing in Wales in the first place. And so the Brit-Shit goes on, night after night!

So me and the team were working out our invasion plans for England then it turns out we don’t have to because reports out today are that folk in the North of England are all dying in their 50s, so really we just need to wait a wee while

Up here in terrible Scotland where that horrible Sturgeon woman rules people are living much longer, so long in fact that we can’t cope with all the oldies like me filling up our care services all over the place which is great in one way but bad in another because the Tories who actually have control of everything are deporting the people who help to provide the care in our NHS so we could be turning up at Hospitals soon and there’ll be nobody there, and now that they’ve succeeded in killing off folk in the North of England that’ll be the Tories next plan for Scotland, to empty the country by medical neglect and *clearances*

Still we’ve got Ruth Davidson who when she’s in Holyrood votes against anything that will raise money in Scotland for the NHS then goes forth unto the public and makes speeches demanding the opposite of what she just said and has the nerve to tell the broadcasters what questions they can ask and what they can’t, then proceeds to repeat her speech all over again without question or challenge to be made by the *journalists* who were ones she prepared earlier (she learned that from bake off) and Theresa May

Ruth wants to be FM of Scotland trouble is she’s used up the only tools in her box, yes the tools that are the Orange lodge and all the sectarian bigots she could muster and will that work again, a hae ma doots

Labours position is one of definitely no idea at all, but I’m sure they’ll be clear on it when they abstain for ideological reasons or *jobs*

If we get to another general election (who knows on that one) my prediction is an almost total wipeout of Tory and Labour MPs once again and the return of 50 plus SNP MPs to westminster and if we haven’t secured an independence referendum by then that’ll be the catalyst for Scottish self determination

Although the Liberal democrats will have something to say about Orkney Independence as well (always good for a laugh the Lib dems)

O/T GMS interview Ruth Davidson’s flipping on immigration explained away as ‘finessing’ because she could be seen as disloyalty to May pre election by Asst Ed of Conservative Home
makes you think is it okay for Ruth to be disloyal now?

“Agree totally. Scotland already has its own currency called the pound. it is not something ‘owned’ by England only. It is really very simple. ”

And the creation of more of these notes is solely the right of the Bank of England by process of seniorage. Each one in existence is backed by the Bank of England. If they remove that “promise to pay” who’s going to accept them?

Much of the money in circulation is electronic money created by banks when they lend. The act of granting a loan creates a deposit. This money circulates between bank accounts via standing orders, bacs payments etc.
Banks settle their accounts with each other using central bank money (reserves).if a bank is short of reserves it can borrow them from other banks or from the central bank (as lender of last resort).
I wonder if banking licences will continue to be granted here with the above in mind?

Deposits in the banking system are guaranteed to a value of £75000 by the FSCS should there be a crisis (another is pretty certain). The U.K. treasury with its central bank always has capacity to guarantee this. What about Scottish banks post Indy?

In other words, use of sterling, no matter the history, puts us at the mercy of London monetary policy.

The radical or extremes of any political ideology right or left are, it appears more vocal and active than the less extreme.
Therefore their voting muscle may be over estimated?

The more extreme anything is the less they are in number? The clue is in the name extreme.
If you weren’t at the extreme end of the spectrum there would be many more of you. (right or left)

So in a sense they are not as valuable as the 10-20% in the middle of the political spectrum. There are simply more people in that region of the spectrum.

The 5% in that area are more likely to be convinced without spooking others already there.

The SNP has tried to appeal to as many as possible by giving a middle of the road (relatively) proposal.
And that makes the most sense.
We need to get as many people on board as possible (obviously!)

How then do the more extreme suggest we win a referendum by proposing we become a socialist state, (Communist) or a right wing state (fascist) (to use the most extreme examples just to make a point) and still get the majority of people to vote for it?
The thought of either of those would scare off more than it would attract.

To me it doesn’t add up.

You have to appeal to the majority and if you scare the majority they will not follow you.

The softly softly gradualist move doesn’t appeal to me, because I am already there but I do understand the thinking behind it. It perhaps has to be that way? At least for a time.

“I won’t vote for Independence because you wont go left / right enough for me”
Ok so we stay where we are then?
You vote no then as a protest, then what?
What chance of your ideology being followed then?

You want change?
Make a change.

As has been said many many times before, We cant do a damn thing without the power of Independence so get that first and then put forward you own personal preference and see what the voters want.

Can’t ever bring myself to like Richard Madeley, too much of a prissy wee gossip I think, but might have to cut him a little more slack in future. Maybe he’s one of the good guys after all. Or maybe it was just a hissy fit.

Disappointed with Bernard Ponsonby and Davidson on Scotland tonight… Second hand of course because the Borders doesn’t get STV but English ITV instead, but have to remember that the Dalai Davidson doesn’t do interviews unless the questions are approved beforehand.

I’m left profoundly confused why so many think Davidson is a great politician. I’m profoundly confused why so many think Boris Johnson or Rees-Mogg are great politicians. Gove? May? Redwood? Corbyn? Jeezo.

@jfngw, Robert Louis: indeed. What I was trying to say is that while we would want a healthy % in a referendum we may have to go down the road of a majority of Scottish WM seats, as suggested by Thatcher Milksnatcher, when she cynically knew we couldn’t achieve that in the late 70s. A referendum victory is my preferred option but The Orcs obviously are going to try to frustrate us/procrastinate over Indyref2 (why:what do they know?).

Of course, our inability to get at least half of the % of any WM vote would be screamed about by the MSM but winning a majority of seats on an independence manifesto would be completely democratic and viewed as such, I am sure, by the EU etc. I also think it’s a lot more difficult to pochle the vote in a non-binary vote like a GE.

Of course, to counteract Greens who are pro-independence, there are people who vote SNP normally but who voted No last time and may do so again.

*shakes head in disbelief*

“Without Indy my voice will be nullified by 10:1 regardless of who I vote for.”

You’ve got to admit the MSM is going full guns in selling the Davidson brand, she is apparently throwing down the gauntlet to May. This is of course absolute fiction, she has no power and the so called Ruth Davidson parliamentarians are still traipsing through the Westminster voting lobby at the orders of May.

It is a mere publicity stunt to give the impression she is standing up for Scotland. If the immigration numbers are to change it is because the Westminster MP’s have decided they need them to. They may of course attribute the success to Davison to foster the idea that voting Tory in Scotland can achieve things, that’s just the fakery of politics.

If she did have any real power at Westminster there would be no confiscation of Scotland’s devolved powers for a potentially unlimited time.

I recommend not visiting the Glasgow Unionist site today, they are in full mode. I had a quick look at the headlines, but I got out quickly before any contamination could occur. It’s more deadly than a Russian nerve agent.

So a[low me to shoot down all that gobbledegook/jargon before going any further.

” … And the creation of more of these notes is solely the right of the Bank of England by process of seniorage.”

The Bank of England, as I have already often shown on Wings, has never in it’s entire history ever belonged to the Country or the Kingdom of England.

It began (by the London Scot William Paterson), instigation a private, (non-royalty and non-English), subscription service in order to bail out the then still mainly English monarchy led parliament of England.

The fact was that the English Mercantile Marine had grown rich and fat because of the English Navigation Acts, (incidentally used against Scotland along with the rest of the World”.

So the rich merchants of the Mercantile Marine were not slow in raising the money to bail out the English Crown who then bestowed upon the newly created, “Guvnor & company of the Bank of England”, an English Royal Warrant.

It was called, “The Bank of England”, not because it belonged to the Kingdom of England but because the Kingdom of England Government banked with it. Just as I refer to the private company “The Bank of Scotland”, as, “My bank”, because I bank with it. At this point in history there was no united Kingdom as both kingdoms were still independent.

“The Governor & Company of the Bank of England”, remained as a private company until 1946 when a, “United Kingdom”, not a, “Kingdom of England”, nationalised it. Thus the so called Bank of England has never been owned by either the country or the kingdom of England and is thus a joint asset of the legally bipartite United Kingdom and is thus partly owned by the legally sovereign people of Scotland.

That means all that gobbledegook, (a.k.a. legal jargon), is Westminster Establishment false history and legally not what the Treaty of Union is all about. It is all Westminster deliberately, and illegally, misinterpreting the Treaty of Union.

Much of the necessity for Scottish independence stems directly from the proven facts that the Treaty of Union was without doubt illegally forced upon Scotland to begin with and further compounded by 311 years of Westminster illegally assuming what the current Secretary of State for Against Scotland is quoted as claiming, “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”. Except that is totally utter claptrap and The Treaty of Union does no such thing. Here is a link to the, (translated into English text, as it was written in French), of the Treaty of Union. See if you can find in that text where it says anything even slightly like what The Westminster Establishment claims:-

So, we either believe your quoted Westminster Establishment/Kingdom of England made-up gobbledegook/jargon from after the Union was forced upon Scotland or we believe the preface and actual legal document that is the actual Treaty of Union without which there would be no United Kingdom.

Note the Treaty of Union is an authentic International Treaty and such treaties have no legal time limit. They continue to be legal agreements until the signing nations split up in which event they then return to the legal, “Status Quo Ante”, which in the case of a bipartite United Kingdom is return to two independent kingdoms. Not to an independent country of Scotland and a still United Kingdom of Great Britain. Not to mention that Great Britain does not refer to the United Kingdom it refers to the largest, (Greatest in size), island of the British Isles.

You are quoting Westminster Establishment legalese bullshit here on a Scottish independence blog and seem to assume that because the Westminster Establishment has formulate illegal changes to the Treaty of Union we have to accept the Westminster dogma even when the concepts that Westminster has promulgated have been judged to have no legal significance under the still independent Scottish legal system.

Are you really still claiming to be a supporter of Scottish Independence?

You are, after all, spouting Westminster dogma that uses the still independent English legal systems to force upon the people of Scotland English law.

Agree with “ Robert Loius@0734 am”, that the SNP did not get the vote out at last GE and if another election is called , manifesto should be in the context of Independence. The single market/ customs union issue is a possibility as a first step towards Independence,however, it should be made clear that as far as SNP is concerned this must be THE ACTUAL SM/CU and not the “ phoney parallel con” which the Britnat Westminster parties are proposing”. Perhaps, however standing on a mandate to commence independence negotiations and our withdrawal from the 1707 Treaty of Union , the details then to be subject to a referendum would be more “ clear cut” ( this could include the SM/CU option as an interim initial position in our relationship with the EU.?
As regards Davidson, I am highly suspicious on her apparent “ clash “ with May. Is it possible that Davidson is in the” know” as regards May being on her “ way out”? If there is to be a GE , ( supposedly on the pretext of Brexit, but actually to “ head off “ a call for Indyref2 by an admission that May’s “ hard Brexit or No deal” has failed, and a new Tory leader is installed to negotiate a “ soft Brexit” ( subject to GE) , then it would explain Davidson now aligning herself with the “ new Tory leadership” and her stance in Scotland then would equate to “ no need for Indyref2 as we are staying in ( parallel) SM/CU . Thus if this is what’s going on then our FM should circumvent with “ Independence mandate “ if autumn GE is called

It was born from an on line think tank whose membership was deliberately selected to encompass the entire political spectrum of indy support. The name ‘Independence First’ was chosen to be a constant reminder that domestic political agendas are very much secondary and should be left at the door. I know that to be true because I coined the name.

Nevertheless, those of us in the centre, the majority, still had a helluva time stopping the ‘radical’ elements of left and right from trying to shoehorn their particular agendas into the group charter.

First we had an attempt from the ‘radical’ right and then from the ‘radical’ left contingent.

Initial battles were won but the motivations driving the ‘radicals’ at either end are pernicious.

So the atmosphere continued to deteriorate, aided by a couple of wrecking moles.

The far right effectively left pinching and making public some of the ideas from IF.

The far left, miffed at the resistance to having their ideas on republicanism, support for independence movements in Western Sahara, Catalonia, Venetia et.al. and of course socialism made manifest in the IF charter effectively formed an autonomous branch in Edinburgh.

However, most of the group’s objectives, despite the frenzy beneath the water, were achieved by the time it effectively came to an end in 2007.

MSPs were made aware of the real level of support for independence from polls which were effectively hidden from them at the time.

Two marches, while small by present standards were the biggest in Scotland in 2006 and 2007, demonstrating support for indy.

The fear, at the time, that the SNP might drop indy altogether abated.

A dossier of evidence was compiled which was sufficient to meet the UN claim requirements for denial of the right to self determination and a complaint was lodged at the UN, however the unexpected election of an SNP government under Alex Salmond, albeit a minority one, introduced a new possible path for an independence referendum which would have to be exhausted before the complaint could be pursued so we withdrew it.

So when the end came, it didn’t matter too much.

The rather boring ending came in a fashion rather typical of the ‘radical’ left. The AGM was hijacked with a bunch of new left wing members turning up, some joining at the door and they narrowly elected, by 1 vote, a new convener who happened to also be the leader of a communist party in Scotland.

BTW, the incumbent convener, who had done an excellent job for 3 years, a top bloke, is a fairly regular contributor here.

I was not surprised when others of the centre, like myself, immediately resigned from Independence First.

As a post script, I tried to persuade a couple of the radical left’s more clearer thinking prominent intellectuals that the way forward might be to go the whole hog and change Independence First into a new left wing party.

At that time, Murdoch had succeeded in destroying the Left which was fractured down the middle. Many of the rank and file may well at that time, have been glad to join a new left wing party with no personality baggage. Plus, with a name like the Independence First Party it would make it harder, in all consciousness, for the closet unionist/internationalist element to join and undermine independence.

I imagine the beginning of an indy Scotland where we all hold hands & celebrate before departing on many different political journeys that will contribute healthily to the dynamism of our new democracy. We’ll all still be Jock Tamson’s Bairns but Jock Tamson will have a nation.

But we won’t get there if there are too many a**eh*les throwing their toys out the pram.

You might as well not vote SNP because you don’t like the colour of Nicola’s shoes because that’s the level of arrogant stupidity that you will have reached if you vote no.

I’ve only seen a couple of interviews with Captain Haggerty. Personally, I feel her ego is larger than her intellect.

@Captain Haggerty
Reality is normative and defined through narrative. Your narrative is outdated and unhelpful.

Discursive psychology, rhetoric and the issue of agency

Recent years have seen the growth of a movement which has aimed to re-orientate the discipline of psychology around the study of discourse. Generally known as discursive psychology, this movement has had a large effect on social psychology, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Scandinavia and South America. Its effect in the United States has been less marked. Discursive psychology is part of the general movement of critical psychology, which has been reacting against mainstream social psychology, especially the sort of experimental psychology that remains dominant in the United States (see, for instance, Gough and McFadden, 2001; Gergen, 2001; Hepburn, 2003; Sloan, 2000). Discursive psychologists have not been content merely to criticise mainstream psychology. They have proposed alternative ways of conducting psychological research, shifting the balance from the quantitative methodologies to qualitative ones, together with a commitment to studying human psychology through the use of language. Discursive psychology, however, represents more than a methodological alternative to conventional psychology. It rests upon an attempt to establish new, theoretical principles. At its heart lies a very different conception of language than that which is accepted by most mainstream psychologists, especially cognitive psychologists.

In this paper, I will outline some of the principles of discursive psychology, especially in relation to its reaction against cognitive psychology. I will seek to show why philosophically the position of discursive psychology entails a critique of cognitivism, and I will describe attempts to use discursive principles to reformulate psychoanalytic theory. In addition, I will discuss the problem of agency, especially how it applies to discursive psychology. I will suggest that the problem of agency is essentially a rhetorical issue rather than a theoretical or methodological one. Calling it a rhetorical problem does not imply that it is a lesser problem – as if it were ‘mere rhetoric’, and, thereby, of lesser significance than theory or methodology. To suggest this would contradict the very basis of discursive psychology, which recognizes the importance of rhetoric in social life. By calling the issue a rhetorical one, I hope to draw attention to the importance of the way that psychologists, including discursive psychologists, use language to write about the phenomena that they are studying.

@ScottieDog
The US Fed, or at least some people, are thinking of giving dollarised countries a share of the Seignorage, and that’s something the Scottish Independence negotiators should go for. Sensibly there should be talks, as Scotland’s 10% of economy compared to the UK’s, specially if ours booms, WOULD have an effect the BoE couldn’t ignore, so for it some co-operation would be needed. But that should come at a price, basically it makes no odds to us, the sterling pound wouldn’t be ours to worry about, we’d just be using it.

Possibly why Carney suddenly shot up out of the woodwork to say a currency union, as in formal currency union, was possible economically. Clearly it would be better for the BoE if it was formal, not informal.

For the US it makes no real difference, their economy is too big to feel the effects of Panama and other dollarised countries, and it is still (though under threat) a world currency so to speak.

@Robert Peffers
ScottieDog and others are talking reality, not history. History has its place, sure, but in RealPolitiks it’s what is agreed, not what is “right” that matters.

The term “agency” is quite slippery and is used differently depending on the epistemological roots and goals of scholars who employ it. Distressingly, the sociological literature on the concept rarely addresses relevant social psychological research. We take a social behaviorist approach to agency by suggesting that individual temporal orientations are underutilized in conceptualizing this core sociological concept. Different temporal foci—the actor’s engaged response to situational circumstances—implicate different forms of agency. This article offers a theoretical model involving four analytical types of agency (“existential,”“identity,”“pragmatic,” and “life course”) that are often conflated across treatments of the topic. Each mode of agency overlaps with established social psychological literatures, most notably about the self, enabling scholars to anchor overly abstract treatments of agency within established research literatures.

Remember kids, British nationalists want Scotland to remain without effective political agency. Possibly even despite possessing the knowledge that a lack of political agency is harmful to the psychological health of the marginalised.

Dear Stu
please take down the complete b*****ks that Blair McDoughnut
Has spouted why Scotland ( uniquely in the world) is incapable of running our own currency.

In my inebriated state ( kills the pain) I have messily started my rant

Blair McDougals story clap if you enjoy he say.s
Slow handclap for
Project fear 2

1. Our Shared History.
You can’t change a country ‘s history .

It’s our pound too.

“force you into the transaction costs”

Does the UK trade with EU.? Do they use English pounds?
Does the UK trade with America? do they use English £ ?

Just be another country to trade with.

2. Increased Costs for Business
Compared to the cost of Brexit
Business costs to adopt a £ Scots will be small.

“Scotland is also a key export destination for the rest of the UK. There is £16 billion-worth of trade that comes from the rest of the UK to Scotland.”
We can only presume Blair means Hydrocarbons revenues returned from London.

“There is about £45bn of trade that flows?—?in each direction?—?between Scotland and England every year”. No! Actually
England sells £65 bn to Scotland .
England buys Electricity and Water. Oh and you will purchase Hydrocarbons.

3. Increased Costs for Citizens

Ireland did it without to much trouble I am sure we are savvy enough to keep . It real

4. Maintaining the UK’s Single Market

There is NO uk single market ?nonexistent ?nope UK Bollocks.
See Wikipedia ?

“There is an integrated financial services market which benefits both countries.”
The city of London is outwith the UK . True dat
How do they cope dealing in multiple currencies.

“There is also labour mobility between Scotland and the UK
?helped by strong transport links, culture, recognised education qualifications and a common language.”

Eh! None of that changes ?

Unless there is a hard Border “labour mobility between Scotland and the UK”
Then we adopt The NI principal.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

Mundell said the withdrawal bill would return powers to Scotland, it didn't, he said he'd amend the bill so it would, he didn't, he said the Lords would amend it so it would, they didn't, he said he would resign if NI got a bespoke deal, they did, he didn't.. #ScotRef /1